Lerma, Old Castile and the Travels of Philip 111 of Spain* Patrick Williams Portsmouth Polytechnic

on Francisco Gomez de Sandoval y Rojas, fifth Marquis of Denia and first Duke of Lerma was the first and greatest of the D favourites (validos or privados) of the Spanish seventeenth

century. For 20 years (1598-1618) he was the valido of Philip 111, the dominant figure at the Spanish Court and one of the major politicians of contemporary Europe, and yet little is known either of him or of the political system that he operated and of the policies that he pursued. This paper will consider one method that was fundamental to his political system and definitive of it, the means whereby he cynically isolated Philip from contrary influences; in the years to the great watershed of the reign in 1611-12, Lerma kept Philip restlessly on the move and even went so far as twice to change the capital of Spain in order to pursue his own interests. The royal travels were usually confined to Old Castile and the area immediately around Madrid, and they were abidingly indulgent in inspir- ation and negative in consequence, satisfying the needs of favourite and king. They tell us much about the relationship between them, for they were an expression at once of Philip’s self-effacement and of Lerrna’s control over him, while their cessation in 1611-12 marked also the turning-point in the reign; when Philip ceased to travel around Old Castile, he began to listen to voices other than Lerma’s, and as he began to live in Madrid so that city grew into a truly national capital.

It is central to any understanding of Lerma that he and his family were from Old Castile. Because his original title was an eastern one, he has

* I am obliged to the Twenty-Seven Foundation for a generous grant which facilitated the research for this article. The following have been particularly useful in compiling itineraries for Philip and Lerma: Philip 111, Las jornadas que ha hecho S.M .... B[iblioteca] N[acional, Madrid, Manuscritos] 2347. f f . 343-358; A[rchivo] G(enera1) de S[imancas], C[onsejo y] Jlunta de] Hlacienda]. Ckdulas y Provisiones Realcs. 213, 217, 218,225,232,235, 261, 264. ? X I , 301 (numeros modernos); ‘Lerma. Billetes y cartas del Duque de Lerma. ibid, 311.353, 3f6, 484(a), 495(a) and 1612 and I613 and AGS, O[bras y[ B[osques]. 302. nos. 1 and 3; Correspondence of Don Juan de Borja with the Duke of Lerrna. Blritish] Llibrary). Add[itional] Manuscripts 28,422-28,425; Documentos varios del reinado de Felipe 111.. . , BN 1492. passim.

379

LERMA, O L D CASTILE AND PHILIP 111 almost invariably been described as a Valencian but he was in fact born and bred in Old Castile, and was aggressively proud of the fact; he often referred to the heartland of Old Castile - the area around Burgos and Valladolid - as 'my fatherland' (mi parria). The founder of his family's greatness was Diego Gdmez de Sandoval (1384?-1454), who had rounded out distinguished service in the reconquistcl by being instrumental in securing the succession of Ferdinand d'Antequera to the Crown of Aragon (Compromise of Caspe, 28 June 1412); as his reward he was given the mavorazgo (entail) of the small town of Lerma some 38 kilometres to thc south of Burgos (18 July 1412). In 1426 he crowned his career with the countship of Castrojeriz, a small place 40 kilometres to the west of Burgos. However, he fell out with John 11 and most of his lands were confiscated while the title eventually passed out of the family in 1480. I t became the chief ambition of himself and his successors to win those lands back, but Fince they were granted to others it proved impossible to do so. Learning from its bitter experience, the family never again fell out with the Crown. and in 1484 its services were finally recognised with the marquisate of Denia. an important coastal town 90 kilometres south of Valencia, with the subordinate title of Count of Lerma being granted to its eldest sons. Ferdinand and Isabella promised to restore the family's position in Old Castile but did not do so, although its rank as grandee was acknowledged by Charles V. When Francisco Gomez succeeded as fifth Marquis of Denia in 1574 neither lands nor status had been restored and the family was in the most dire poverty.' When in 1598 he entered his valimienio he knew what he wanted - titles, lands and wealth - and he wanted them in Old Castile. The east was of no real consequence to him.

The young king whom he set out to control was 20 in 1598, the fourth and final son of Philip 11's last marriage. His mother, Anne of Austria, had died when he was two and Philip I1 had guarded this last of his boys with jealous vigilance, surrounding him with stern tutors and rarely allowing him to be seen in public. Familiar with death, young Philip grew up with the traditional Habsburg morbidity, but with a weakness of character that had surely been nourished both by the lack of a mother and by the overwhelming greatness of his father. He sometimes had cven to approach his father through intermediaries and i t was perhaps as a reaction to the coldness of Philip I1 that he had developed both his emotional feeling for his grandfather Charles V and his dependence on his favourite. Dcnia was over twice as old as Philip in 1598 (45) and had become something of the father-figure that Philip I1 had never really been to him. By the time young Philip succeeded to the throne, he was almost completely under his influence. The relationship between the two men was to prove of crucial importance for Spanish history, and central to it was their non-stop movement. Both had compelling personal reasons for retreating to the countryside.

' Patrick Williams, 'El rrinado d e Felipe 111'. Rialp. Hisioria de Espana y America. Vol viii. La C'risa de la Hegemonia Espatiolu, pp. 419-443. and Alonso Lopez de Haro, Nobrliurio Gcneal6glco (Madrid. 1622). i. 156-167.

380

PATRICK WIL I- IA MS Reserved and unsure of himself, Philip was ever ready to seek the

countryside as a means of escape from the work of government with which he could never fully cope and from suitors he could not otherwise avoid and whom he had always found it difficult to refuse. Travel was a psychological as well as a physical escape from kingship; in March 1604, for instance, an Englishman came across him in a humble dwelling at Guadarrama, dressed in the garb of a Franciscan and with only a few courtiers attending him.* More positively, he genuinely loved the hunt and never tired of it. Although he was of a delicate constitution and normally went to some trouble to protect himself from the extremes of heat or cold, or even of wind, he could bear great hardship in the pursuit of game; he was prepared to wade through snow and flood and sometimes allowed himself only three or four hours sleep a night for days on end so that he could accommodate his long hunting days. He was a good shot on both horse and foot and was known, inevitably, as an outstanding horseman.' Hunting provided an important part of the framework for his year.

Another part of his year was religious and canonical, reflecting his profound if conventional piety. For instance, a number of special celebra- tions could bring him to the Escorial at the end of summer - 10 August, the feast of St Laurence, the patron saint of the monastery; 13 September, which he seems to have celebrated in memory of his father's death at the monastery rather than of his own accession; 30 September, the feast of St Jerome, the patron of the monks of the m ~ n a s t e r y . ~ Similarly, when he was on his travels he enjoyed visiting holy places and eagerly joined in religious celebrations and processions, seeking out indulgences with special fervour. He derived deep satisfaction from such occasion^.^

Keenly aware that his position depended on his control over Philip, Lerma was always determined to control access to him, and he did this by isolating him, both within his palaces and outside them. He held the major offices in the king's household himself and appointed relatives and henchmen (hechuras) to the lesser posts. In his last days Philip I1 had appointed him Master of the Horse (cabafferizo mayor) to the heir in a despairing effort to restrict his influence beyond the confines of the palace. For Denia (as he still was) it was a crucially important post, since it gave him the right to ride and hunt with young Philip and enabled him to accommodate Philip's need for solitude and his love of the hunt with his own need to shield him from other influences.0 He acquired similar power within the palace when in December 1598 he was appointed sumiller de

' Th. W(ilson?] to M. de Veras. Madrid, 19 March lhw. P[ublic] Rlecord] O[ffice]. (State Papers). SPIAIN], Y4/9, f . 158. Englishmen writing from Spain tended to use the Old Style; for the purposes of clarity I have converted to New Style and assumed that they were consistent in respect of the days as well as of the years. ' Luis Caberera de C6rdoba. Relaciones de las cosas sucedidas en la Corre de Espana desde IS!& h u m I614 (Madrid, 1857), (hereafter Relaciones). pp. 34,57,82, 101, 104, 161, 163-64. 175, 184, 193, 256, 336. 445. 487.

' For instance, ibid. 61, 181, 256. '' C. PCrez Bustamante, La Espana de Felipe 111, Vol xxiv of Hisroria de Espana Ranidn Menendez Pidal (Madrid, 1979), p. 50.

381

Ibid, pp. 82. 31 1 .

LERMA, O L D CASTILE A N D PHILIP I I I corps; he thereby gained the right to enter the royal chamber at any time of day - particularly at the receptive moments of daybreak and nightfall when he supervised the dressing and undressing of the king - and to intercept any correspondence addressed to Philip.' He thus controlled access to the king both in Court and countryside ( c a m p ) . His isolation of the king extended across the whole spectrum of the royal activities; on one occasion he even had two senior grandees virtually ejected from the royal coach.h He similarly established control over the other royal households, of the queen, and after 1611, of the heir to the throne.') He was the master of the royal family's life, in palace and beyond; i t was the key to his political system.

He rounded out his control over the royal households by securing the offices which enabled him to govern the right of entry into the royal palaces themselves and even into the cities in which the Court was residing or where it was visiting. As will be seen, he achieved a particularly domi- neering position in Valladolid in this respect. In Madrid, he held the governorship (alcaidia) of the city and those of the royal palaces, stables and hunting lodges. For the royal progresses he needed local powers. Of course. he already held those in the town of Lerma. He acquired the alcaidias of the city of Burgos and of the royal palaces in Tordesillas, Leon and Toledo, and in Toledo he also held those of the bridges and gates of the city. He had himself appointed to town councillorships (regimientos) in Valladolid, Madrid, Toledo, Segovia, Guadalajara and Tordesillas. so that he could keep a vigilant eye on the conduct of local affairs, and even served as a parliamentary representative (procurador) in the Castilian Corfes. All these offices were concentrated in Old Castile and in the area immediately around Madrid. In thq south, he held the alcnidias of Antequera and of the old frontier fortress of Velez, and he gave his eldest son that of the Alhambra in Granada."'These were probably held against the day when he took Philip to the south, but he never did. Old Castile was what mattered to him.

* + * When Philip succeeded to the throne (13 September 1598) he had already been married by proxy to Margaret, daughter of the Archduke Charles of Styria, and the first of the great progresses of his reign was concerned to go to the east coast to meet her; he left Madrid on 21 January 1599 and did not return until 24 October. There was much opposition at Court to an extended journey, but Denia had reasons of his own for taking Philip to the

Jonathan Brown and J . H . Elliott. A Palace for a King (Yale. 1980). p. 16: on Lerma's appointment. Relaciones. p. 1. ' Relaciones, p. I h l . * L. Ferndndez-Martin, 'La Marquesa del Valle', Hispania, 39. no. 143. 1980. pp. 550-638. and E. Rot!. 'Philippe 111 et le duc de Lerme', Revue d'Hisroire Diplomoiique. 1887. i . 201-16 and 363-84 ' I ' On offices. 'Descripcion e imbentario de las Rentas Vienes y hazienda del Cardenal Duque de 1-erma.. ', Valladolid. 27 March 1622 (hereafter Inventory). Alrchivo dell Dluque de] L(erma]. f f . 20 and 27h; on Lerma's attendance as procurador. I . A . A . Thompson, 'Crown and Cortes in Castile. 1590-1h65'. Parliomenrs, Esrares and Represenfafions, 1982, ii. 32.

382

PATRICK WILLIAMS east; the Court spent a month in Denia itself (24 July-24 August) and over I1 weeks in the city of Valencia (19 February-4 May), as it launched itself into what one contemporary called 'a new style of greatness'." Denia was the master of ceremonies; he later calculated that he had spent over 300,000 ducats on the journey. But in controlling Philip for these long months he consolidated his power. Moreover, there were compensations in abundance, the largest of them worth 173,000 ducats.12

Another characteristic of the reign was foreshadowed in the shabby treatment of two of the provinces. A visit of nearly eight weeks to Barcelona (20 May-13 July) saw a hurried meeting of the Corts of Catalonia at which Philip contrived to win a subsidy over twice as large as his father had ever managed, and yet still vitiated the success of the visit by the foolish lack of discrimination with which he dispensed his 1arge~se.l~ The visit to Aragon was a token affair; on the way back to Madrid, a short visit to Zaragoza (12-22 September) saw Philip make a few gestures designed to end the residual bitterness from the revolt of Aragon and its aftermath (1591-92). Denia naturally benefited, being given some of the lands of Juan de Luna, one of the leading rebels; in return, perhaps, Luna's skull was removed from its public ignominy. No Corfes were held, despite Philip's original intention; there simply was not time, and it was sadly characteristic of the visit that when Philip came to enter Zaragoza he was unable to do so because the triumphal arch was on the wrong road - he had announced his arrival in the summer from Barcelona, but instead arrived a couple of months later from Va1en~ia.l~

While the baroque monarchy was being born in the east, the centre and south of Spain were being devastated by the twin catastrophes of famine and plague. The plague which had entered Spain in December 1596 had not done substantial damage outside the nothern provinces until the hot summer of 1599; it then moved with terrifying force through Old Castile and deep into the south where it aggravated the problems caused by acute food shortages. The cities, towns and villages of Castile and Andalusia sealed themselves off from each other, but to no avail; in the apocalyptic summer months of 1599, they were devastated - for instance, Valladolid lost 6,000 people, perhaps 15 per cent of its population - and as Bennassar has observed, it was in the summer of 1599 that Old Castile finally lost its leadership of Spain.Is In the east, however, the celebrations continued without pause; on 26 July, as the plague reached its very peak at the heart of Spain, Denia wrote from Denia itself that 'there is no such fiesta in the

' I Gil Gonzalez Davila, Hisruria de la vida ... de ... Dun Felipe I l l in P. Salazar de Mendoza, Monaryuia de Esparia (Madrid, 177071). pp. 64-5. I2 On Lerma's expenditure. Inventory, f . 27. On the escribania de sacas v cosas vedadas of Andalusia, worth 173.000, cunsulras of the Council of Finance, 21 May 1611 and 30 June 1612, AGS.CJH. 365. f f . 148 and 371, and Relaciunes, p. 64.

J . H . Elliott, The Revolt ufrhe Caralam (Cambridge, 1963), pp, 49-51, and Relaciunes, pp. 24-5 and 31. I' Reluciones, pp. 10, 41-2. I' B. Bennassar, Recherches sur les Grandes Epidemies Dans le Nord de L'E..rpagne a la Fin du X V f e Siecle (Paris, 1969). pp. 29-30. 67.

383

LERMA, OLD CASTILE A N D PHILIP 111 world' and confessed himself radiantly happy.I6 The plague hardly touched the east, and Philip and Denia extended their stay until it had exhausted ithelf for the summer. The tone and style of Denia's vulimiento had been set. and shortly after the return to Madrid the new order of things was symbolically confirmed when he was raised to the dukedom (1 1 November 1599). I n homage to his ancestors he chose the title of Lerma." He was ready now to exercise the fullness of his power.

In 1600 he repeatedly took Philip away from Madrid; they spent no more than 15 weeks there, travelling instead to the cities of Toledo, Segovia, Avila. Salamanca and Valladolid. There were various reasons for this - the need for Philip to enter the cities of Old Castile ceremonially (con pulio) at the beginning of his reign; the need to console the cities so devastated by the plague; the need to ensure that the cities themselves adhered to the agreements made in the Cortes by their representatives - but the suspicion remains that Philip was again escaping from the realities of kingship and that Lerma was avoiding opposition to his vulimiento; much of the time was spent not in the cities themselves but in nearby hunting lodges and in churches and religious houses.

Also among the purposes of the travels of 1600 was to take long looks at the possible alternative capitals, notably Toledo and Valladolid, both of which of course had formerly been capital cities. Philip had taken a dislike to Madrid. and Lerma was able, as always, to play on his prejudices for his own purposes. He took him to Toledo for a month in March and April but had no real interest in moving the Court there; Toledo was too small and compressed and Lerma himself owned no significant property there. Valladolid, however, was at the very heart of his ancestral lands, and he intended to build there on the grand scale; he and Philip spent six pleasant weeks there in July and August, shielded from the worst of the summer heat. I n

Legitimate reasons could be adduced for moving the Court to Val- ladolid. The presence of the Court in the city could do much to help it recover from the trauma of the plague and the beneficial effects might extend throughout Old Castile; as the arguments developed in 1600 the proponents of the move laid emphasis on this p0ssibi1ity.l~ Valladolid would also have provided a suitable capital from which to oversee the naval wars currently being fought in the Atlantic; it was characteristic of the frivolity of the operation that this was never apparently raised for consideration. The city had some natural advantages; it was very well provisioned and lay at the centre of an extensive communications network. I t also had city walls which allowed a restricted right of entry, so that unwelcome visitors could be kept out and the size of the Court and city

'I' Dcnia t o Juan de Borja. Denia. 26 July 1599. BL.Mss.Add. 28422, f . 80. '- Lcrma. 'Testamento', Madrid. 12 June 1617, a printed copy, ADL. 12, no fol. " Philip visited Toledo for a month until 6 April and Valladolid,for six weeks (19 July-29 August): he also spent brief periods in Segovia. Salamanca. Avila, Zamora, Toro and Tordesillas. Itinerary. On the attractions of Valladolid, Relaciones, p. 73. " I Ihid. p. 56.

384

PATRICK WILLIAMS regulated. Lerma understood well enough the implications of restricting entry to the city - and indeed tested it out on the 1600 visit - and the king, who was especially worried at the consequences for public morals of having a large court, may well have weighed seriously the fact that Valladolid had a population (~40,000) which was smaller by half than Madrid’s and that its growth could be controlled, in direct contrast to Madrid’s.zu There were, however, severe disadvantages, particularly in the shortage of accommodation. Although the Court had been resident in Valladolid four times in the years 1517-59, it curiously did not even have a royal palace, and while as a traditional noble city it had many private palaces, it did not have the type and quantity of accommodation required for the Court and government; from the very beginning the royal servants found the years of the residence in Valladolid uncomfortable and expen- sive. However, there were certainly enough religious foundations; Val- ladolid was said to have more of these than any city in Spain.?’ The abundance of good hunting country all around was a particular attraction. while there were rivers for fishing and boating.

The real reasons for the removal, however, were Lerma’s, and they were emotional and practical. He regarded Valladolid as his home city and with the Court resident there he intended to embark upon an enormous programme of acquisition of lands and construction of buildings, both in the city and beyond it. Valladolid was near enough to Lerma itself to allow him to supervise work there; he used the years of the residence of the Court to begin turning Lerma into probably the finest aristocratic estate in the country, building a magnificent palace and a variety of churches and religious houses. He also built a hunting palace at la Ventosilla near Aranda de Duero and enlarged his estates in Cea and Ampudia. He complemented his secular building with an ecclesiastical programme that ultimately cost over a million ducats; in all of his towns, villages and lugares he endowed the Church with unstinted magnificence. It was so that he could do all this that he moved the Court of Spain from Madrid to Valladolid.2

The city of Valladolid itself was much more than a mere centre of operations for this extraordinary project. It had a very special place in Lerma’s affections; for all that he built up the town of Lerma, he never seems to have wanted to live there on a long-term basis, perhaps because it was too small and provincial for him even after his splendid improvements. He wanted to live in Valladolid, and more than that he intended to die there. Even before the visit of 1600 rumours were circulating that he

B. Bennassar, Valladolid en el Siglo de Oro (Valladolid, 1983). 2’ B. Pinheiro da Veiga, ‘La Corte de Filipe 111’ in J . Garcia Mercadal. Viaips dr Extrunjeros por Espario y Portugal (3 vols, Madrid, 1958), ii. 131. ” On his property in Valladolid, see Agustin Bustamante Garcia, La Arquitectura Clasicista del Foco Va‘alliwlerano (1560-1641) (Valladolid, 1983), pp. 407-17; on Lcrma itself, Luis Cervera Vera, El conjunto palacial de la villa de Lerma (Valencia, 1969). and Lerma: Sintesis histdrico-monumental (Lerma, 1982). There seems little reason to bclievc that Lerma moved the Court to escape from the hostile influence of the Empress Maria in Madrid: he could easily circumvent her - she was, after all. now a nun.

385

LERMA, OLD CASTILE A N D PHILIP Ill

intended to move the Court to Valladolid; by May 1600 his great-uncle, the new Cardinal of Toledo, was bluntly warning him that it was being said by knowledgeable men at Court that ‘the removal to Valladolid is for the construction of the church and house that [you] ... desire and treat of with such vehemence‘.” By the autumn it was known that he was determined to build a mausoleum in Valladolid for himself, his forbears and descendants, and it was understood at Court that the removal would take place in the spring of 1601 expressly because ‘the Duke of Lerma shows that he much desires it, which is purpose enough to have it done’.2J It came as no surprise therefore when in the autumn of 1600 he commissioned an architect to design a palace in Valladolid but nothing came of the project, presumably because it was too expensive.?‘ In fact, the fall in property values after the plague meant that an ideal opportunity now presented itself for buying property cheaply; Lerma (who had a small palace in the city) was not the man to miss such an opportunity. He took steps at the beginning of December 1600, simultaneously purchasing the best palace in the city from the Marquis of Camarasa and the patronage of the monastery of San Pablo. These buildings faced each other across the Plaza of San Pablo and their joint acquisition formed the basis of a long-term plan; Lerma would live in the one and worship in the other. He had now the ‘church and house’ in Valladolid; a month later the removal of the Court was formally announced (10 January 1601).?6

Lerma had hardly begun his own building programme before it developed what, on the face of it, was a fundamental problem; Philip became so impressed by the Camarasa palace that he insisted on buying it from him at cost price to have as his own palace. Since Lerma controlled Philip so closely the probability must be that he himself engineered this surprising turn of events. Certainly he profited from it with his accustomed brilliance; at the end of 1601 he sold it to Philip and in return was given the alcaidia of the palace and a salary of 1,200 ducats annually in perpetuity for himself and his successors and this was incorporated into his rnayorazago. With the proceeds from the sale he bought 11 towns and villages around the town of Lerma which also were subsumed into the rnayoruzago. At the same time, he acquired grounds for yet another palace and hunting lodge (the Caw de la Ribera) on the bank of the river Pisuerga, 100 metres to the west of San Pablo. The alcaidia of the Camarasa palace entitled him to live in the palace free of charge and would mean that if ever the Court left Valladolid he would have the complete run of the palace without any maintenance expenses. Was this what he originally intended - that he should have a palace opposite San Pablo in which he could live at the crown’s expense and from which he could not be legally ejected? I t is pertinent to note that in 1607 he performed exactly the same manoeuvre with the Casa de la Ribera - and that he did spend his life after his

Li ’Papel dcl Cardenal de Toledo ... al Duque de Lerma ...’, Granada. Y May. a copy. BN. 4013. f f . 101-10.1. at 10%. ’‘ Relacrones, p. 86.

Ibrd, p. 80. ’’ Ibrd. pp 93-4

386

PATRICK WILLIAMS departure from Court in the Camarasa palace. Lerma had something akin to gcnius for exploiting his position with Philip 111; in the Plaza de Sun Publo, whatever his original intentions may have been, he used it to its fullest .*’

He also allowed Valladolid to give him in perpetuity a town council- lorship which carried voting seniority; he could thereby keep a close eye on the work of the municipality.2x He added a number of other offices and what was left over he gave to Rodrigo Calderon, his closest confidant and aide and a member of a Valladolid family - police chief, archivist, registrar of the Chancellery, head of public works, governor of the royal prison, postmaster general and town councillor with voting ~eniority.2~ For good measure, Lerma had another notorious hechuru, Dr Juan Bautista Acevedo, appointed to the bishopric. In time he brought Valladolid under his control with a fullness that he could not have exercised in Madrid.

The removal was, of course, a vast upheaval which may have directly involved 10,000 or more people who had to uproot themselves and their families from Madrid and tolerate the difficulties of the removal and the hardships of finding suitable accommodation in Valladolid. Transport, food and lodging had to be paid for and simple mechanics meant that the turmoil lasted for several months. Since, for instance, there was insuf- ficient transport, the governmental councils had to move individually and during this time and during the settling-in period on arrival their business was severely dislocated. To provide lodgings in Valladolid the Audienciu had to be moved to Medina del Campo, Medina’s fairs to Burgos, and the University and Inquisition of Valladolid had to vacate their quarters. But there was still a shortage; the Council of Portugal, for instance, had no proper lodgings and had to accommodate itself in the house of its leader, the Count of Salinas.”’

Madrid was, of course, devastated and its resentment was shared by the Cortes as a whole. Educated opinion was almost exclusively against the removal and few held any doubt that Lerma was responsible and that his reasons were selfish; the historian Jer6nimo de Sepulveda, far instance, wrote with scorn ‘that such a great prince and so powerful a monarch as the king of Spain should allow himself to be led by the whim of an individual’.” Madrid has often been thought of as an artificial city but for most contemporaries it was vastly preferable to Valladolid. Few had a good word for Valladolid. For all its attractions in the summer it was very wet in the autumn and bitterly cold in the winter. It had the reputation of an unhealthy town but its very unattractiveness may even have commended it to Philip and Lerma in the hope that people would not flock there as they

*’ ‘Estado de Lerma: Bience en Valladolid’, ADL, 8, no fol. zn Relaciones, p. 78. zv Anonymous ‘Cartas’ of a gentleman at court, 22 July and 12 October 1621, B N . 11011. f f . 218-219 and 23Ov-231.

Relaciones. pp. 95, 103, 104 and Lerma to Marquis of Poza, Villalpando(?). 27 January 1601, AGS. CJH, 293, f. 224. ” Sucesos del Reinado de Felipe 111 (1924). p. 244.

387

LERMA. O L D CASTILE AND PHILIP 111 had lately been doing to Madrid. If so, it was a vain hope; men would always flock to where the Court was.

In the five years that the Court was resident in Valladolid, Philip travelled comparatively little. His longest stay away from his new capital was that of five months from June 1605 and part of that was due to the queen's being taken suddenly ill.32 Only twice did he even make serious summer progresses and on both occasions returned to his houses around Madrid; in 1602 for three months and in 1603 for two months he returned t o San Lorenzo. the Pardo and Aranjuez. However, he made only the briefest (and indeed surreptitious) of returns to Madrid itself, seeking n o doubt to avoid embarrassment at being pestered for the return of the Court.'7 Using Valladolid, then, as his base. he made trips into the varied hunting country now available to him - at Tordesillas, Buitrago. la Ouemada. Cubillas. la Serreta, San Miguel de Toro, la Aguilera. Caravaj- ales. Castrocalvtin. Villalpando and (especially) la Vcntosilla. Typical of these excursions was the very first of them made when he had spent only six days in Valladolid after his arrival in 1601:

he left for the forest of San Miguel, which belongs to the Count of Villalonso and is near Toro. in order to go hunting. From there he went via Zamora to Carvajales. which belongs to the Count of Alba, and where there are mountains that are good for hunting and for recreation. He killed three wild boars and many rabbits in the three days that he spent there. The place is within 20 leagues of Valladolid. From there he returned by Villalpando, which belongs to the Constable, and went on t o Ampudia, which belongs to the Duke of Lerma, and on the first of this month he returned to Valladolid in order to spend the carnivals there.

I f noble hospitality was a factor encouraging Philip and Lerma to linger in the hunting lodges, they spent little time in the towns and cities; they visited several of them - Zamora, Toro. Segovia, Avila, Salamanca, Burgos, Valencia and Leon - but tended to stay only briefly, conducting business and meeting obligations with great alacrity before moving on. In 1603. for instance, Philip spent only two days on a visit to Valencia. Such brevity had advantages for both parties; Philip and Lerma would not be subject to local demands for unbearable periods, while the cities could minimize the cost of entertaining their sovereign. This cost could indeed be much resented - nowhere more so than in Leon in 1602, where the local lords and gentry beat a precipitate retreat as the king arrived.3s

No sooner had the Court moved into Valladolid than Philip made the first of his visits to the town of Lerma itself. However, it would be some years before the town was ready for him to make a serious visit and he stayed for only a fortnight. Lerma was rebuilding the town in these years;

'' Philip stayed for 25 days from mid-September at Olmedo when Margaret was taken i l l there. Rdacione.$, pp. 260. 262.

'' Ihrd. pp. 95-6. '. Ihd. pp. 130. 1x1.

388

Ibid. pp. 141-42. 144. 146. 175. 227.28.

PATRICK W l L L l A MS

symbolically enough he took the Escorial as his model and the court architects as his builders. In 1604 he began the construction o f his grcat palace and he also opened with great ceremony, and in the royal presence, a convent for barefoot Franciscans to accommodate the criadas of his late wife. By 1605 work had progressed far enough to justify a royal visit of a month (27 June to 31 July). Outsiders were rigorously excluded:

No one has been allowed to enter the town to deal with government business or any other matter unless they had express permission, cven if they were a minister or a servant of the royal household. This rule has been enforced strictly with everybody. Anyone arriving who wants to enter has been taken out o f the town by the sheriff of the forests, under pain of not rcturning. With this. their Majesties have been able to enjoy themselves and relax in freedom ...j6

Philip made only one formal state progress in these years. to Valencia in 1603-4. No Cortes had been held in Valencia in 1599 but in May 1603 Philip granted Lerma the concession of the tunny fishing rights (alrnadrahas) of the coast of Valencia and Catalonia and the justification for another journey to the east presented itself since the Cortes of Valencia would have to ratify the award. From the beginning Lerma intended it to be a short trip and one moreover from which the queen would be excluded: her preg- nancy and miscarriagc (17 September 1603) provided the justification for leaving her behind. The Council of State was almost unanimous in its opposition to the journey urging instead that the king go to Portugal, but Lerma’s advice to go to the east held sway once again. For the second time Philip began a major journey in the winter and he suffered for it. He left Madrid on 10 December but the road to the east was a mudbath and the great coaches eventually arrived in Valencia on Christmas Eve. Lerma had originally intended to hold the Cortes in Denia but abandoned the idea - for reasons of expense? - and they were convened in Valencia itself (9 January). They ended on 20 February and were successful for king and favourite; Philip won record grants and Lerma had the almadrahas confirmed. He also had his brother, the Marquis of Villamizar. appointed to the viceroyalty. He marked his departure by giving away his palace in Denia, turning it into a Carmelite conv~n t .~ ’ I t was a deeply symbolic act; he never returned to the east. His destiny lay in Old Castile.

The only potential rival to Lerma for the affections of the king was, of course, the queen but she could not hope to match his influence in the early years. At best she could aspire to remain with Philip for long spells and to do so she even took up hunting; on one occas!on she actually killed a wild boar. She could influence the direction of journeys themselves only in small ways, as for instance in three short visits on which Philip accompanied her to San Juan de Ortega near Burgos where pregnant

Ih Cervera Vera. L-1 cotijunm puluciul. op. cii, G. Kubler. Building I I W Escoriul (Princeton. 19x2). pp. 114-15; Rrluciones. pp. 101-2. 222-24. 255-56. ” /hid, pp, 176, 190. 197, 200-1. 203-0; Lerrna to Juan de Rorja, el Pardo. 2-1 h’ovcrnber IM13. BL. Add. 28, 425, f . 144, cnru. State, 2 November 1603, AGS. Elstado] 2636. 1. 17-5; o n thc convcnt, Inventory. op. cii.

3x9

LERMA, OLD CASTILE AND PHILIP Ill

women (or women who wanted to become pregnant) traditionally went to pray. But she and her attendant ladies were an encumbrance, liable to hold the king up; in the years 1601-11 she gave birth to eight children and suffered at least one miscarriage. The most punctilious care was taken of her; as soon as it was suspected that she might be pregnant she was confined t o a sedan chair and her activities were severely curtailed.3x Since Philip was not to be constrained from pursuing his relaxations in the countryside he regularly left her, doubtless being encouraged to do so by Lerma. Margaret greatly resented these separations and on at last two occasions in the early years there was serious tension with Philip over them. In 1601 she was seriously ill while he was away and when he was called back precipitately he found her in a frenzy; after her recovery she allowed it to be known that her illness could be attributed in part to her resentment at his absences and to her being deprived of the ladies she had brought with her from Germany. The first of these complaints carried the express implication that her illness might recur in the future in similar circumstances, while the second was pointed sharply at Lerma who had replaced the German criadas with ladies of his own choosing. The second moment of tension between king and queen was over the Valencian trip of 1603-4; i t was known to have been at Lerma's insistence that she stayed behind and she made no secret of her deep resentment.3o

I t was about this time that Margaret began to develop as a serious rival to Lerma and the Valencian episode of 1603-4 may have helped strengthen her resolve. Certainly, thus far she had been cautious in her opposition if sometimes very pointed; in 1601, for instance, when Lerma was desperate that the first of her children should be born in his palace in Valladolid, she cleverly allowed him to make all the necessary arrangements and then gave birth in the house of his enemy, the Count of Benavente.x'Such gestures were well understood but apparently rare. However, as Margaret developed into full adulthood, and more particularly into motherhood, her relationship with Philip deepened into a genuine love-match on both sides. In particular the birth of the heir in 1605 after a number of disappointments gave her fully regal status. By the end of the residence in Valladolid it was widely understood that she was Lerma's chief enemy.J'

Throughout the residence in Valladolid there had been rumours that the Court would return to Madrid. Shrewd observers began to note that Lerma was replicating exactly what he had done with Valladolid prior to the removal there; he began purchasing property at newly-reduced rates both within Madrid and neighbouring villages. He began, too, to gain control of key offices; in 1602 he became regidor of the city and in 1603 the alcaide of the royal palace.J2 He understood well enough how to deal with the

'* On trips t o San Juan. Rekuciones, pp. 73, 181. 222;. pregnancies and deliveries. ihid, p. 95.

"' /bid, p. 124. See also pp. 104. 123 and 226 and James van Castre to M. de Veras. Madrid 30 Dccembcr 1603, PRO. SP. 94/Y. f. 94.

" Perez Bustamante. op. cir. p. 125. " Rekucione.,. pp. 14s. 176.

390

107. 130. 149-SO, 181-82. 224. 226. 281-82. 367.

Rekuciones, p. 133. *I

PATRICK WILLIAMS corporation of Madrid alternately vexing and teasing it. By 1603 he was undertaking large-scale improvements to his property on the Prado de Atocha (opposite where the Prado Museum now is), once again acquiring properties while prices were low. Naturally, Madrid itself made every facility available to him, allowing him to close roads, destroy existing buildings, to move inhabitants and to construct a plaza; the city knew well enough how to deal with him. By the end of the year the nascent palace was adequate enough to lodge the king and queen; Philip was content to stay there rather than in his own palace, while Margaret - who was left behind there while king and duke went to Valencia - claimed that it made her sick.J3 Lerma’s huerru was becoming a symbol. Madrid itself was happy to pay for the celebrations at the huerta. It had suffered grievously since 1601; it may have lost 15,000 or more of its 65,0()0 inhabitants and it had had to take emergency measures to encourage people to inhabit houses and to keep them clean and in good repair.4J

In Valladolid itself it proved easier for Lerma to supervise his building programmes in the city and beyond than it did to create comfortable conditions for courtiers and administrators. The housing in the city became more inadequate and expensive and living conditions were deeply resented, especially since landlords and speculators exploited the shortages. The city’s reputation as an unhealthy place was soon confirmed; Cervantes’ ‘Glass Graduate’ spoke for many when he ‘heard one man telling another that as soon as he got to Valladolid, his wife had fallen very ill, because the place didn’t agree with her’.45 By 1604 serious problems of public health were beginning to develop; an Englishman reported many deaths from fever and was fearful of an outbreak of plague.& Lerma and Philip may themselves have feared such an outbreak; in 1605 they left the city in mid-June and did not take up residence again there for five months. While they were away a major outbreak of disease occurred; by early September 1,000 people had died and as many again had been taken ill. Worse, the royal couple themselves became ill; Margaret’s illness, which lasted from mid-September to the end of October, forced her to stay, uncomfortably, in Olmedo. Among the dead was a grandchild of Lerma. Both Philip and Lerma were confirmed hypochondriacs; perhaps both were fearful now not only for themselves but for the new heir to the throne, who had been born in If the city walls of Valladolid could (if only in theory) lock people out they might also, in practice, lock plague in. It was time to go back to Madrid, especially since Lerma’s building programmes were now substantially underway; in November Lerma opened negotiations for new water supplies for his palace in Madrid.4R

43 Ibid, pp. 145,166. 176, 197-201. and van Castre to M. de Veras, Madrid 30 December 1603, PRO. SP. Y3l9, f. 94.

‘’ ‘Exemplary Stories’, Penguin Classics, edited by C.A. Jones (1972). p. 113.

47 Relaciones, pp. 259-61, 262-63. 266, 268, 270. uI ‘Estado de Lerrna’. op. cit.

Relaciones, p. 1Y7, 270.

T. W[ilson] to Sir Robert Cecil, Valladolid 1 0 October 1603, PRO. SP. 94/10, f . 112.

391

LERMA, OLD CASTILE A N D P H l L I P Ill At the same time Madrid formally opened negotiations for the return of

the Court. In January 1606 negotiations had reached an advanced enough stage for i t t o send a deputation to Philip who, appropriately, happened to he in Lerma's town of Ampudia. I t was led by alcalde de corte Silva de Torres. a friend of Lerma's infamous hechuru, the Count of Villalonga, and a man who was himself under the protection of Lerma; with Lerma effectively negotiating for both sides agreement did not prove difficult .4v

Philip was offered a sum of 250.000 ducats and one-sixth of the rents of the rented houses in the city over a period of ten years. I t was not known how much money changed hands surreptitiously, although Villalonga was subsequently found to have received iOO.OO0 ducats. Inevitably. it was Lerma himself - ever the bearer of good news - w h o told Madrid of the return and he left no doubt that it was he who had engineered it."'

* * * Court and govcrnmcnt returned ovcr the period February-April 1606; so joyous. indeed, were courtiers at the news of the imminent return to a cheaper and more comfortable Madrid that some of them had to be constrained from abandoning Valladolid precipitately. I t took years to sort out the chaos; the Council of Finance and its tribunals, for instance, had still not been completely rehoused by the end of the reign." Valladolid was stricken by the departure; in 1607 it was consoled by having its tax (alcahala) reduced by half. In gratitude and with royal licence it gave t.erma the town of Tudela de Duero.'?

The arrival of Philip and Margaret in Madrid (4 March 1606) proved to he of historic importance, marking the real beginning of Madrid's status as the capital o f Spain. Although Philip I1 had made Madrid his capital in 1561 he himself, and consequently his aristocracy, had never been in full residence and Madrid therefore had never become a true capital. That changed, i f not immediately, in the years after 1606. Ixrma himself set the tone. beginning to build a palace that would become the model for a generation. As it slowly became evident that Madrid would remain the capital the aristocracy flocked there; by 1617 the city had trebled in size to l50,OOO people and it had become one of the dozen or so great cities of I-lurope. if still only the second largest in Spain itself. This astonishing growth tempted the government to at least toy with the idea of going back to Old Castile but it was never a serious proposition. Instead it tried, wmcwhat wanly. to cut down on the growth by attempting to expel all sorts of different groups - aristocrats. absentee landlords, rich widows, prostitutes. pcoplc from the cities of Valladolid. Seville or Toledo, and so

' I S i l v ; ~ Je Torres mas ' a man much fauorcd' by Lcrma. Francis Cottington to Salisbury. Madrid 30 November 1604. PRO. SP. 04/17. f . 243-244h. -'I Thc m m t detailcd account of the return. Relaciones. pp. 268-77. The letter from Lerma 10 thc city of Madrid is printed by A. de Lccin Pinelo. Atides de Murid: Reinado de Felipe 111. .-\~io.s lSY8 11 /(A?/, edited by R . Martorell Tkllez-Girdn (Madrid, lO3l). p. 237. note 98.

~ Rchc.iotir.\. p. 270. On Finance. cnras. Fin. 15 July 1608. 1 Dcccmber 1616 and 10 January 1621. A G S . C'JH. 352. f . 32; 395. F. 43 and 311 no f o l . ' Rc4uciotlc\, pp 306-7.

392

PATRICK WILLIAMS on. It was to no avail; the growth continued and by the end of the reign was distorting the Castilian ec~nomy.~’

Initially, little seemed to have changed; in the nine months after the return Philip spent only four in his new capital.54 However, at the end of the year a dramatic crisis erupted which blurred and then redefined all political perspectives. In December 1606 the largest troop m,utiny in Flanders for 30 years took place and on 26 December Lic Alonso Ramirez de Prado, who had been one of the key men in administering military provisions, was arrested on suspicion of profiteering from his position. Investigations promptly led to the arrests of Villalonga himself and Pedro Alvarez Pereira, both of whom were widely known as hechurus of Lerma, and as the extent of Villalonga’s wealth became apparent his patron cringed.55 While the lengthy investigation proceeded Lerma was content to stay in and near Madrid, perhaps hoping to influence events; in 1607 he and Philip made a brief journey of two to three weeks in June to la Ventosilla, Lerma, Burgos and Valladolid but spent seven months in all in Madrid and just over three in San Lorenzo. Matters became progressively worse. Spain was driven in 1607 to a humiliating cease-fire in the Low Countries (March) and to a state bankruptcy (November); the logic of both led to the Twelve Years’ Truce with the Dutch in 1609 which Philip felt to his dying day as a deep humiliation.56 Until the assassination of Henry IV provided some respite in May 1610 the government was engulfed by crisis and Lerma’s unpopularity was legitimised on a number of fronts. Notably was it true that the difficulties with the Cortes and the resentment of soldiers and nationalists at the terms of the Truce gave a patriotic justification to opposition to him. At the same time the sensational arrests of 1606-7 pointed dangerously in his direction as the patron of the accused men and when Rodrigo Calderon nearly fell Lerma may well have felt that his own position had all but crumbled; he spoke of retiring. He was deeply unpopular even in Madrid which owed him so much for the return of the Court; as the fiscal implications for the rnudrdeiios of the agreement to bring the Court back became clear loyalty to the duke ebbed away. By October 1607 Lerma was sufficiently shaken to announce that he would be leaving Court. He was generally thought to be bluffing but there can be no doubt that his position was gravely ~ndermined.~’

53 On attempts to cut down the growth of the city, ibid, pp. 285, 310. 342-43.368-69 and 382, and Le6n Pinelo, Andes, pp. 240-41; on the growth of Madrid, David H. Ringrose, Madrid and /he Spanish Economy, 1560-1850 (California U . P . , 1983).

Philip spent the following periods in Madrid: 3 March-3 April. 20 May-17 July. 5 December to the end of the year. He seems also to have visited Madrid on 14 September and 23 November. 5 s On the mutiny, Geoffrey Parker, The Durch Revolr (Pelican, 1977). p. 238; on corruption. I .A.A. Thompson, War and Governmen/ in Habsburg Spain, 1560-1620 (London, 1976). pp. 80, 195-96, 267-68; on arrests, Relaciones, pp. 2%-98; on Lerma’s reaction, ibid, p. 308. cn The expulsion of the moriscos was something of a compensation. enacted on the same day. John Lynch, Spain under rhe Habsburgs, Vol ii Spain and America. 15Y8-1700 (Oxford, 1969). p. 42. s7 Relaciones, pp. 317, 322: on the context, see my article ‘Lerma 1618: retirement o r dismissal?, European Hisrory Quarterly (henceforth ‘Keriremeni’) forrhcoming.

393

LERMA. OLD CASTILE AND PHILIP 111 Philip himself was deeply shaken by the crisis but stood by Lerma as his

son would stand by Olivares in not dissimilar circumstances 20 years later. However. in the years t o 1610 his kingship reached its nadir, dejected and irresponsible. Aware now perhaps that the investigation into Villalonga could not be thwarted, Lerma took Philip away from his new capital. In 1608 they were away from Madrid for nearly five months (19 May to 3 October) during which Philip visited the town of Lerma no fewer than three times (31, 9 and 6 days) and Valladolid for nearly two months (2 August to 25 September). In 1 6 0 Philip did not travel so far. but confirmed his new predilection for San Lorenzo (most of the period 25 April to 30 June). while his stay of two months in Segovia from 2 July was both long and historically of major importance; here. far from opposition influenccs liable to be raised in Madrid. he made the Truce with the Dutch and. as he thought, salvaged his own prestige by expelling the mori.ycos.5x In 1610 he passed Villacastin. the gateway to Old Castile on 27 February and not until the first week of December did he take up full residence in his capital again. He spent six weeks in Valladolid from early March. two months in Lerma from late April. and the whole of July and August in Aranda de Duero, held prisoner now by the sudden and grave illness of his heir . "(.

In the years 1608-10, therefore, Philip was away from Madrid for over 18 months. that is to say for half of the time. He and Lerma were subjected to bitter criticism nowhere better expressed than in a letter from Sir Charles Cornwallis. the English ambassador, to the Lords of the Council in London. over the journey of 1608:

The King here having ... follow'd the Duke of Lcrma in his Journey; and not followed but purposed so long an aboad with him in these Partes. as he hath removed the most part of his Councell of State and all that have any hand in conc1usib.e Determynations. leaveth so general a distast in this Court and People. as amongst them all I cannot chose but have my partc. arid feare some e\,ill E t m t to that Duke; whose immoderate Desires o f his own particular C'oritent.s and Interrests druw him to precipitate himself into the Gulf of Envy and Mulediction o f the People, by leading a King in such an unfitting sort after him with tnunifest Neglect of the important Affayrs of his Kingdom and disregard to )%hut helongs wito his kingly Office. . . I t is said that there is no Retourne intended before the last of October yf s o soone. and that all that while (although for the Rendevous is appointed Valliodalid. yet) the King himself wil be in contynual Motion from one I lowse and Towne of the Dukes to another. By this Meanes has become the Towncs of that Duke better built and his Tennants Purses more filled with Money, which well he knoweth doth fall in Conclusion into his Che5te. as into the natural and proper

'' Iliego rlr C'olmenares. Hisroria dr lo Insigne Ciudud dc. Segoviu.. . (2 vols. Segovia, 1969-70), ii. pp. 382-83. "' Rc*luciuner. pp. JOY. 411-12. 414. I.' C'ornwallks to the Lords of the Privy Council. (Madrid) 22 May 1608. printed in Ralph Winwood. Memoriu1.v of Affairs uf Siore in rhe Reigns of@rrrrn Elizahcvh and King Jarnrs I ( 3 \()Is, London. 1725). i i . 395-96

394

PATRICK WILLIAMS While it was true that the king and d i d o were fleeing from their responsibilities and from political opposition, it was also true that their relationship was changing; Lerma was talking consistently of retiring from political activity, if not from Court and was taking the first steps to ensuring that his eldest son succeeded him in the valimiento.h’ I t was perhaps as an expression of this that in 1608 and 1609 he was separated from Philip for significant periods; there was a separation of nearly a month in April-May 1608, while in the summer of 1609 he was formally given leave for two months’ absence to go to his own lands to see to his affairs. In August he was summoned by Philip to Segovia and participated in discussions about the details of the expulsion of the moriscos. Had he been hiding from it, anxious perhaps to be able to disclaim responsibility for it? Certainly there appears to have been some emphasis in the summons from Philip and some reluctance on Lerma’s part; he stayed only eight days.62

If the relationship between Philip and Lerma was under serious strain the events of 1610 seem to have rescued it but at the cost of bringing the royal grandeza to a humiliating low point. The Council of Finance was unable to fund the journey by the late summer, and Philip and Lerma had on their own initiative to order the chief local magistrates (corregidores) to take the necessary money from central taxes (encabezarnientos). The enforced stay in Aranda while Prince Philip recovered proved uncomfort- able and expensive; by late August the queen’s comptroller had to beg Lerma to take the household to Lerma itself where twice as much credit could be obtained, alleging that the queen’s ladies were having to rely on their relatives for food.(“

It may have been his ability to feed her ladies that at last commended Lerma to the queen. Whatever the reason - and presumably Philip’s urging would have been fundamental - the 1610 journey saw a reconcili- ation between Lerma and Margaret. The queen at last consented to give birth under Lerma’s roof and on 24 May a daughter was born to her who seems have been named jointly after herself and her host, Margarita Francisca. Lerma’s crisis was over. His position was spectacularly confir- med when on 8-10 June the exequies for the assassinated Henry 1V of France and the baptism of the princess took place in Lerma.H

* * * The tour of 1610 was Lerma’s last great indulgent itinerary, a culmination. Financial exigencies and the reconciliation with Margaret doubtless played their part and it is probable that the scare over the prince’s health had traumatic effect; Lerma certainly seems to have feared that he might be

‘’ See Williams, ‘Retirement’. ‘’ Relucionexs, pp. 336. 337, 317, 380. President Carrillo of Finance to Lerma, Madrid 10 April 1610, AGS. CJH. 361. no fol.:

Comptroller of the Queen to Lerma, Aranda 28 August 1610, ibid. no fol.: and Lerma to Carrillo. Aranda 28 August 1610, ibid, no fol. hl The speculation about the naming of the infanfa is mine; no contemporary cver suggested that it reprcsented a reconciliation. On the birth, Rcluciones, p. 406, and on thc church scrvices. pp. 408, 409.

395

L E R M A . O L D CASTILE A N D PHILIP 111 held accountable for any further accidents to him."? Whatever the cause the years 161 1-12 proved to be, in this as in other respects, the turning-point of the reign. Philip was now confirmed in his fondness for San Lorenzo; he stayed there in 1611 from 26-27 June until 9 October. Lerma's position underwent a profoundly important change when on 21 January 1611 he swore in as tiyo and rizuyordomo mayor of the heir. His eyes were obviously turning to the futurc as he sought to do with the future Philip IV what in the late 1590s he had done with the future Philip 111; he was looking to establish control over the next king.* A further change in Lerma's position was coming about with the progress of work on his palace in Madrid. Incomplete as i t still was - and it does not appear to have been fully complete until 1617 - i t offered Lerma both the grandeur and the privacy hc needed; increasingly he would want to enjoy it rather than roam the countryside of Old Castile.'" Determined to secure a Sandoval succession when young Philip succeeded his father. Lerma began now to stay with his y o u n g charge at the expense of accompanying the king and to groom his own son. the Duke of Uceda. to succeed him in the vulirnienfo. At the turn of September-October he was in his third separation from the king since June when he was summoned urgcntly to San Lorcnzo; the queen was ci y i n g .

Margaret died on 3 October 161 1. Philip was devastated; he had come to low his wife deeply and in 1611 had been radiantly happy, barely separating himself from her at all. He declared a year of mourning which would of course preclude any serious travels. Lerma. less devastated. took him off on a brief progress in October-November to Balsain, la Ventosilla and Lerma itself during which he broached yet again the prospect of his own retirement.'"' They then spent the last six weeks of the year in the Pardo and Madrid. Many thought that Philip would wish to remarry; Lerma may well have wished to see to it that he entertained no such thoughts - as was observed, having had experience of one queen he would wish to avoid another.'"

Philip began travelling again on 12 October 1612; he made ;L five-week progress that took him to la Ventosilla. Valladolid and Lerma. In 1613 and 1614 he made similar brief autumnal progresses, each of which took him to Lcrma itself. His relationship with the Duke was changing now quite perccptibly. Ever more melancholic. and with duties now to his six surviving children, Philip was now becoming much more sedentary and he was beginning to listen to voices other than Lerma's. The end of the intineracies coincided exactly with the growing seriousness of the challenge to Lerma. led now by confessor Aliaga. At first - from just before the queen's death - Aliaga concentrated his attentions o n Rodrigo Caldertin ''. Ihrd. pp. 43) . 4.32 '' Ihrd. p. 429 ''- O n a royal visit to the palacc, h i d . p. 441. '* /hid. pp. 438. 442. 443, 450-51' on Philip's reaction. Digby to Salisbury. Madrid 6 October 161 I . PRO. SP. 94;IX. f f . 194-194b. For accounts of their joint activities throughout the year.

"" Refcrcncc tn the vear's mourning. ihrd. p. 493 O n 1.errna.s rctircment. 'Rctircrncnt'.

3Y6

Kt'!UC'lO?lt'.\, pp. 42'). 432. 434. 430. 438. 4 1 . 442. 443. 445.

I)ighy to Sdlihur!. &.ladrid 14 January 1612. PRO. SP. 94/19. 11. 1-lh.

PATRICK WILLIAMS and in 1611-12 effectively destroyed his position at Court. Lerma sought assiduously to remain in Philip’s favour while doing all he could to help Calderon; he entertained the king no fewer than three times in his palace in 1613. But there were ominous and explicit signs of disenchantment on Philip’s part; in 1613, for instance, he twice publicly dispensed favours in a manner calculated to snub Lerma very openly.’]

A major preoccupation of the king in these years was to put off the dreadful moment when his beloved eldest daughter, Ana, would leave him to go to France as part of the double marriage alliance that would bind France and Spain in friendship. The exchange of brides had been originally planned for September 1612 but had been repeatedly postponed on a variety of pretext^.'^ By 1615 further delay was unrealistic and the last of the great journeys within Spain took place to take Ana to the French frontier; Philip left San Lorenzo at the end of May and did not return until the middle of December. He appointed Lerma to take the bride to the frontier from Burgos but the duke was desperately unwilling to go. Unable to escape the royal command he fell conveniently ill at Bribiesca and transferred the final stage of the journey to Uceda. For his part Philip could not let his daughter go; having formally bade farewell to her just outside Burgos he then raced after her, overtook her at Vitoria and accompanied her as far north as Fuenterrabia. He never saw her again; perhaps he was never happy again.73

For Lerma the trip had even fuller significance; it was his last great occasion of state and early in 1616 he announced publicly that he was handing the conduct of affairs over to his son. The retirement of which he had so often spoken was to become a reality, if not immediately; he was looking now to ending his days in holy orders. True to himself, he naturally conceived of entering the priesthood with the rank of cardinal; he began now actively to pursue this ambi t i~n . ’~ In 1616 Philip made a brief trip to Toledo but otherwise spent the year in Madrid and its vicinity. With the exception of a celebrated last visit to Lerma in October 1617, when he was away from Madrid and its vicinity for six weeks, he did the same again in the following year. By the end of 1617 Lerma’s cardinalate was secure. In 1618 Philip travelled not at all; Lerma’s day was at an end and he eventually left Court on 4 October. As for Philip; in 1619 he made a long-overdue journey to Portugal and he made it on the pattern of his earlier trips to the east in a manner likely to be counter-productive. He became ill on the return, nearly died, and probably never fully re~overed.’~ He died on 31 March 1621. Lerma himself spent most of his last years in the Camarasa palace in Valladolid and died there in 1625. He was buried in San Pablo.

” Relaciones, pp. 473; 494-Y5, the letter is incorrectly dated and should be ‘20 October 1612’;

72 See, for instance, Relociones, pp. 510, 515, 526, 534, 550. ’’ Digby to Winwood, Madrid 1 December 1615. PRO. SP. 94/21. f f . 189-189b. ’‘ ‘Retirement’. ’‘ Fernando de Acevedo, ‘Los Acebedos’, printed by Mateo Escagedo Salmon. Bolerin de la Bihlioteca Menendez y Peluyo, at vii (1925), pp. 218-23, and viii (1926). 15-20.

3Y7

522-23.